Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri V.K. Singh, counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.D. Kautilya, Advocate representing respondent no. 2 as well as Standing Counsel who represents respondent no. 1.
(2.) Petitioner no. 1 is the son of one Ved Raj and petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are the grandsons of aforesaid Ved Raj. The said Ved Raj died on 26.8.1999. Plot Nos. 37/5, 37/9, 37/3, 34/8 and 34/10 which were part of Chak No. 240 was allotted to Ved Raj and Plot No. 244/9 which was part of Chak No. 356 was allotted to respondent no. 2.
(3.) Against the settlement made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 2 filed his objection before the Consolidation Officer regarding chak allotted to him on Plot No. 530. The aforesaid objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 26.3.1999. Against the order dated 26.3.1999, respondent no. 5 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 24.12.1999. Not satisfied with the arrangements of chaks as made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 2 filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 which was registered and numbered as Revision No. 3. A perusal of memorandum of revision instituting the aforesaid revision (which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure No. 1) shows that respondent no. 2 had prayed for allotment of chaks on Plot Nos. 311, 313, 314 as well as Plot Nos. 470, 471 and 473. The contention of respondent no. 2 as evident from the memorandum of revision was that plots allotted to respondent no. 2 were near the river and therefore not suitable for agriculture. It is pertinent to record that the plots mentioned by respondent no. 2 in his memorandum of revision were not allotted to Ved Raj and therefore Ved Raj was not impleaded as a respondent in the revision. However, on 14.9.2000, respondent no. 2 filed an application in Revision No. 3 praying for permission to implead Ved Raj as a respondent in the said case. Any order permitting respondent no. 2 to implead Ved Raj as a respondent in the said revision has not been annexed either with the writ petition or different affidavits filed by respondent no. 2 and the petitioners and there is no averment in the pleadings of either parties referring to any order passed by respondent no. 1 permitting respondent no. 2 to implead Ved Raj as a respondent in the revision. However, it appears from the records annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit that a notice dated 28.9.2000 was issued to Ved Raj in the aforesaid case. Evidently, the aforesaid notice was issued and the impleadment application was filed after the death of Ved Raj. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 that the application filed for impleading Ved Raj and not his heirs (who are petitioners in the case) was a consequence of the fact that after the death of Ved Raj, no mutation proceedings were instituted by the heirs of Ved Raj and the revenue records reflected the name of Ved Raj. It is also pertinent to state that no reasons have been given in the impleadment application to implead Ved Raj as respondent in the aforesaid case. It has been contended by the petitioners in the writ petition that no notice was ever served on the petitioners and the notice annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit was issued to Ved Raj and therefore could not have been served on either of the petitioners. It has been further stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that as no notice was served on the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners had no information about the proceedings in the revision and could not appear in the same and argue their case. However, it has been categorically stated by the respondent in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by him that notice dated 28.9.2000 was received by petitioner no. 1 who was the eldest member of the family and the petitioner no. 1 continuously appeared in the case and had also signed the order-sheet. The aforesaid averment made by respondent no. 2 has not been categorically denied by the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit and it has been merely stated by the petitioners that they had not signed any Vakalatnama and had not argued their case before respondent no. 2 and had also not appeared before him. However, in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have not denied the signature of petitioner no. 1 on the order-sheet of the case which has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 and shows the signature of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 26.6.2002 allowed Revision No. 3 instituted by respondent no. 2 and altered the arrangements of chaks allotted to Ved Raj and respondent no. 2 whereby chaks allotted to Ved Raj on Plot No. 37/9 was allotted to respondent no. 2 and chak consisting of Plot No. 1364 was allotted to Ved Raj. A perusal of the order dated 26.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 shows that the aforesaid arrangement has been made by respondent no. 1 on the ground that the chak allotted to Ved Raj on Plot No. 37/9 etc. was Uran Chak and the chak allotted to respondent no. 2 on Plot Nos. 244/9 and 263 was not suitable for agricultural purposes. The order dated 26.6.2002 has been challenged in the present writ petition.;